Psychic Sally morgan caught cheating?

[Reno]

Yes, spreading this information is less harmful than her actions.

I fail to see how that's an excuse for spreading this information. It's not like her phone number being online will stop her doing what she does. If anything it will just give her a new pack of victim cards to play.

It's not an excuse. It's just a statement. It may give her more victims to play with, but the continuing publicity garnered from activities such as this may reduce her current victimbase more than it may increase it.

She's not complaining. I am. I think that this is a mean thing to do and it makes us look bad. It's also counterproductive to the campaigns against people like her.

Continue to complain about this woman being unfairly treated if you wish. It won't make me and many others felel any sympathy for her. I'm not convinced that this action will be counter-productive.

So would you cheer if someone smashed the windows of her car?

Actually, I would. You may call it mean-spirited, I call it satisfaction that she is getting a little taste of her own medicine.

I don't think the narrative that will emerge is that simple. If skeptics come across as acting like jerks towards her, the narrative changes from "fake psychic cons people" to "mean people bully an old lady".

Like I've said before, the more publicity, the better.

 

[Lamuella]

Actually, I would. You may call it mean-spirited, I call it satisfaction that she is getting a little taste of her own medicine.

Then there's no point in talking to you about... anything, really.

 

[GT/CS]

Agreed

 

[Reno]

Fair enough.

I'd also cheer if someone put in all the windows of one of Sylvia Browne's mansions.

 

[commandlinegamer]

She's not complaining. I am. I think that this is a mean thing to do and it makes us look bad. It's also counterproductive to the campaigns against people like her.

Well, if it were people who identified as card-carrying, paid-up members of the sceptic community, perhaps. They might be just nihilists.

 

[Lamuella]

Well, if it were people who identified as card-carrying, paid-up members of the sceptic community, perhaps. They might be just nihilists.

The accounts on twitter have been posting the information have made claims of being skeptical and pro-libel-reform.

Even if they hadn't, do you think that would make the slightest bit of difference in whether Morgan's defenders would claim the people doing this were skeptics, or whether people would believe them?

 

[snuffkin]

100% In agreement with what Reno has said on this. I also have zero sympathy for Morgan. Many people like to beat about the bush, and tip toe around these psychics, and I really don't know why. You might see me as being 'mean' too, but that's how I feel.

She puts herself out there, enjoys the fame, wealth, and chooses to 'run the gauntlet of cynics and skeptics on a daily basis by the work that I do' (Lol). Yet she refuses to engage with non-believers, she refuses to be tested and she lets loose the lawyers instead to try and intimidate people. She bans people from her public facebook page who dare to question her and she obviously thinks that she is untouchable.

So what if someone has published her email, it's already public information anyway. If it means the press will pester her more now, then GOOD! It's about time! The only thing that will have an effect is more publicity.

The alternative is to have this fade off the radar again and have her (and Sylvia Browne) carry on earning millions and suckering more people, without proving what they say they can do. It's wrong.

 

[Jr1985]

Indeed. The vile parasitic wench deserves to be punished.

 

[welshdean]

Oh Dear!

 

[Lamuella]

100% In agreement with what Reno has said on this. I also have zero sympathy for Morgan. Many people like to beat about the bush, and tip toe around these psychics, and I really don't know why. You might see me as being 'mean' too, but that's how I feel.

She puts herself out there, enjoys the fame, wealth, and chooses to 'run the gauntlet of cynics and skeptics on a daily basis by the work that I do' (Lol). Yet she refuses to engage with non-believers, she refuses to be tested and she lets loose the lawyers instead to try and intimidate people. She bans people from her public facebook page who dare to question her and she obviously thinks that she is untouchable.

So what if someone has published her email, it's already public information anyway. If it means the press will pester her more now, then GOOD! It's about time! The only thing that will have an effect is more publicity.

The alternative is to have this fade off the radar again and have her (and Sylvia Browne) carry on earning millions and suckering more people, without proving what they say they can do. It's wrong.

The main point isn't that this is mean.

The main point is that this allows her to play the victim. It also interferes hugely with the behind the scenes activities relating to those who are opposing her in constructive ways. People like Hayley Stephens (who has done massively more on the front line against people like Sally Morgan than most people here have) are furious about this because it messes with the things they were doing.

http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/2011/11/02/sally-morgans-phone-number/

The person who put these details out there has just handed Sally an excuse not to participate in things like the Merseyside Skeptics tests. Now, when she refuses to take part she looks less like a fraud running for cover and more like a victim of harrassment not wanting to face her tormenters.

Whoever put the numbers up has given a fraud and a charlatan cover to run for the hills. Well done.

 

[snuffkin]

No, she still looks like a fraud running for cover.

And she doesn't care about tormentors at all. No amount of handing out leaflets to believers is going to change her going out on stage every night. That's one way to inform a few people, sure. But It needs something much bigger to expose the lot of them.

 

[Lamuella]

No, she still looks like a fraud running for cover.

To you she looks like a fraud running for cover. The public don't always see things as you do. If they did, we wouldn't need to complain about psychics as they'd be out of business anyway.

The people actually taking front line action to combat people like Sally Morgan think this was a horrible idea and a setback for their plans. I agree with them.

 

[Lamuella]

Let me try and explain a little more why I think publicizing information like this is a bad idea:

The battle against people like Sally Morgan is a PR battle. In a PR battle, you have two aims:

1) Lower people's opinion of your opponent
2) raise people's opinion of yourselves

The most effective PR battles are where you can use someone's own words and actions to discredit them. One of the most successful PR coups against a psychic was Randi's effort against Peter Popoff. He used Popoff's own words (or rather his wife's) to demonstrate that he was a fraud. Randi himself came out smelling like s rose because he wasn't seen as attacking Popoff but rather exposing him. Popoff had no cover, as he was indicted by himself.

The current efforts against Sally Morgan do a lot to lower people's opinion of her. The Merseyside Skeptics test creates an image of someone given a chance to demonstrate her powers and refusing to take it. While some might see putting the challenge as "bullying" sally (I've seen that opinion online from a couple of people), it certainly lowers opinion of Sally more than it does of the Merseyside Skeptics, or skepticism in general.

Publishing Sally Morgan's contact details online does absolutely nothing to lower people's opinion of her. You might think she deserve it, just as Reno thinks she would deserve having her car windows smashed in. However, it doesn't do anything to make someone look at Sally Morgan and think less of them. On the other hand, it does a hell of a lot to make people think less of skeptics. It also goes against the aims of things like the Merseyside Skeptics test. There, the two outcomes were either Morgan turning up to get tested and failing, or Morgan not turning up. Until now, Morgan not turning up was a major negative for her but not really any kind of negative for skeptics. Now, a neutral observer is less likely to be asking "Why won't Sally take the test?" and more likely to be asking "Why would someone take a test from people who spread their personal info online?"

Apart from a measure of schadenfreude, there is no upside to this, and plenty of downside. This is a PR own goal.

 

[snuffkin]

The people offering the test had nothing to do with publishing information about her company contact details (which are already available online anway). Those people are keen to promote libel reform, Sally just seems to be one of the kinds of people who are rich enough to use these kind of bully boy tactics.

And Sally at first denied wearing an earpiece after the voice was heard, allegedly feeding her information. Then when footage appeared of her wearing an earpiece she backtracked and changed her story. She exposed herself, but the story just hasn't had enough publicity. Possibly something to do with her lawyer attempting to stifle journalism by telling radio and tv stations not to mention her, when people like Paul Zenon and Simon Singh have been on talking about psychics.

Anything which brings her more into focus is a good thing. The MorganLibel person has simply published a page detailing her company info and contact details. Where you can also see she lists herself as other things she is not - a physiotherapist.

 

[Lamuella]

The people offering the test had nothing to do with publishing information about her company contact details (which are already available online anway).

I know that. You know that. Are you trusting the public to make that distinction?

Anything which brings her more into focus is a good thing.

Could you explain what you mean by bringing her into focus, and how spreading her personal information does this?

 

[bluesjnr]

I know that. You know that. Are you trusting the public to make that distinction?

Well if you can, then why not the majority of "the public", or are you suggesting that somehow you are smarter than the average person in the street?

 

[Lamuella]

Well if you can, then why not the majority of "the public", or are you suggesting that somehow you are smarter than the average person in the street?

I'm suggesting that I know a lot more about Sally Morgan and the people critical of her than "the average person in the street" does. It's not a matter of being smarter, it's a matter of having known about the story longer and being relatively well informed about it.

Someone who is giving a story about this a cursory glance in (for example) the Daily Mail isn't going to know the nuances of the people involved, and we can't rely on the newspapers bothering to explain these nuances.

 

[snuffkin]

I very much doubt the readers of the Daily Mail in general, even saw the tweet from MorganLibel. It's a only few people (like yourself) who are getting their knickers in a twist about it. Why not just get over it and carry on with your own methods. Other people will have their own views on the best way to make people like Morgan accountable for what they do. So what if more journalists will bother her or her lawyers as a result of her company details being out there. Publicity is what is needed. Hopefully it will eventually bring about a change in the law to regulate all self-proclaimed 'psychics'.

 

[thenigotoffthebus]

Have to agree with Lamuella.

I despise Sally Morgan but actions such as publishing her private information isn't doing "our side" any favours & frankly it seems a somewhat pathetic & juvenile thing to do.

We are the good guys in this situation, lets act like it.

 

[Lamuella]

I very much doubt the readers of the Daily Mail in general, even saw the tweet from MorganLibel.

How about reporters for the Daily Mail? Think any of them saw it?

It would be childishly simple to write a piece based on this about wicked skeptics and innocent psychics and it would have the same air of truthiness as half the stories on the newsstands each day.

It's a only few people (like yourself) who are getting their knickers in a twist about it.

My knickers are profoundly untwisted. I made one comment about it and then people started asking me questions. I'd prefer it if you stopped implying an emotional reaction to this, as there isn't one.

Why not just get over it and carry on with your own methods.

Because I view this as unhelpful to the end goal and I have the right to say so. Plus, several of the people who are using thir own methods have said that their actions have been hampered by morganlibel's actions.